Meadow Lake Airport Association Inc."Coloradoís Largest Pilot Owned Airport"
Board of Directors Meeting
Thursday January 13, 2005
President Jack Dhooghe called the Meeting to order at 2:19 PM. Present were Members, Dave Elliott, Gene Kear, Richard Martin, Verlin Schauer, Mark Shook. Absent: Lee Wolford
Steve Johnson wished to discuss the history and background of his Appeal of the ACC's interpretation regarding the 40 foot setback requirement also being applied to buildings with hangar doors facing taxiways. This issue has been appealed and decided on at least 2 prior occasions. Greg Johnson presented each board member with a written list (attached) of prior appeals and issues with the ACC.
Greg Johnson cited the 2 prior successful Appeals of this same issue, and listed multiple examples of current hangars with hangar doors that open on a taxiway that were approved with set backs of less than 40 feet due to the wording of Article 6 section 2 of the By- Laws. " Buildings need not be set back from road or taxiway easement lines". At Decembers meeting, the board upheld its prior rulings, and again ruled in Mr. Johnson's favor. After a review of the letter. Mark Shook suggested that The board needs to specifically task someone to review all the current ACC standards, and requirements, review them with our legal council, and publish a checklist to assist a member who is building a new hangar.
Verlin Schauer (ACC) then addressed the board and expressed his feeling that he and Gene (ACC chairman Gene Kear) had been tasked to do that, had done it, and then the board changed the standard by removing the required deposit at the December meeting, Verlin stated his "interpretation, now is that the ACC committee is useless". Verlin stated that until the review and approval of new rules at the annual meeting, "the board is now responsible for anything that gets approved."
Mark Shook reminded Verlin that the ACC's review functions had not changed since the by-laws were adopted, that the only thing that had changed was the damage bond requirement had been revoked as it did not accomplish its intended purpose. The bond requirement was a relatively recent addition added by then President Greg Johnson in the mid 1990's. Temporarily removing the bond requirement until it could be reviewed and rewritten to be enforceable, in no way changed the need or original duties of the ACC. Just like the county planning commission can be appealed to the board of commissioners, the MLAA board has always been the appeal body, or board of adjustment, for any member who had a reason to appeal a decision of the ACC. Having a decision appealed or even overturned does not end the ACC's role, or responsibility.
Gene Kear stated that when a historical decision or interpretation exists, that information needs to be available to the current ACC members so that "someone on the ACC can figure out what is supposed to be going on."
Greg Johnson told the board " Thatís why its so important the ACC have people with building or real estate backgrounds". In reference to the appealed decision on the 40 foot setback rule, Greg stated Gene and Verlin were the only ones to ever interpret it that way. Greg pointed out that the various ACC members in the last 15 years had always interpreted the rule as the board agreed last month when it overturned the current ACC on this issue. "As a builder, we never had to appeal a decision of any of the ACC's until recently". That setback issue, is the rule with the biggest impact on property owners. When Verlin as ACC chairman first interpreted it his way back 3 years ago, it was appealed to the board. The board overturned his interpretation. Now here it is 3 years later, and we have the same exact issue, with the same person that was overturned on the same issue 3 years ago. And to compound the problem, between those two dates, when Verlin submitted his plans for his own building, he had his plans approved with a 0 setback from a property line. Greg said he did not see any way to interpret that except that Verlin was enforcing one standard on the Johnson's, "and a different standard on himself". Worse yet, Verlin's 24 foot hangar addition was then built over the property line, and rests on Ray Smiths property.
Greg and Steve presented plat maps, and an overlay of the improvements showing 338.43 feet of buildable area. Steve stated that he had personally measured the total building improvements at 344.0 feet, which is 5.57 feet more than the maximum buildable area. With a 10 foot setback requirement, that would make it (approx.) 15 feet longer than allowable. Steve stated he informed Verlin before Verlins building was constructed, of this potential problem and a Cox survey error that his surveyor had discovered.
Verlin stated he relied on a building marker stake that was put in many years ago to show the setback area. Verlin denies he is over the property line, and stated his building meets the 10 foot setback rule.
Steve stated that he was not going to take action against Verlin, it was used only as an example of a double standard on an ACC members part. Steve invited Verlin to have it checked with a licensed surveyor.
Mark Shook stated that it would be advisable to add an "as built" ILC survey requirement to the new ACC checklist. That would prevent and bring this kind of potential mistake to light.
The board discussed ways to solve and prevent ACC problems. It was generally agreed that a member committee that included builders be formed, meet, and discuss their ideas with the board, and then the board should meet with our attorney before changes are finalized.
The meeting was Adjourned at 4:10 PM.
Mark Shook/Secretary Meadow Lake Airport Association, Inc.
Gregory L. Johnson
Po. Box 26614
Colorado Springs, CO. 80936
January 13, 2005
The following is a list of actions taken by the Architectural Control Committee of the Meadow Lake Airport Association, that required an appeal by Johnson and Associates to the Board of Directors of the Meadow Lake Airport Association. All of these actions have taken place from May 2001 to December 2004.
1. Strickland Project (40 foot setback )
ACC denied approval because building was designed with hangar doors 20 feet from lot line. No written notice was given by the ACC. No meeting was requested by the ACC with the builder or owner to review the building submittal. MLAA Board of Directors over ruled the ACC because the hangar doors in question would face a taxi way, and this is allowed as per Bylaw Article 6, Section 2. No written approval was received from the ACC.
2. Johnson Project (Easement Encroachment )
ACC denied approval because building foot print would be 10 feet from lot line, encroaching into a 16 foot utility- ingress - egress easement. No written notice was given by the ACC. No meeting was requested by the ACC with the Owner. MLAA Board of Directors over ruled the ACC because the 16 foot easement was platted (and clearly marked) 8 feet on the Johnson lot and 8 feet on the adjoining lot, for a total of 16 feet, not 16 feet on each side of the lot line. No written approval was received from the ACC.
3. Strickland Project (no stake out )
ACC denied approval because building foot print was not staked out for measurement by the ACC. No written or verbal notice was given. MLAA Board of Directors over ruled the ACC and ordered the ACC not to require physical placement approval. No written approval was received from the ACC.
4. Thomas Project (no stake out )
ACC denied approval because building foot print was not staked out for measurement by the ACC. No written or verbal notice was given. However the ACC did write to the owner after construction had started, claiming that Johnson and Associates was building his hangar without ACC approval. MLAA Board of Directors over ruled the ACC and ordered the ACC not to require physical placement approval. Johnson and Associates informed the Board that as per Bylaw Article 6, Section 2, the Thomas project was approved by the inaction of the ACC to give notice within the 45 days required for ACC action. Johnson and Associates asked that a letter be sent to Thomas rescinding the previous letter. No written approval was received from the ACC.
5. Johnson Project ( 40 foot set back , $5,000.oo deposit )
ACC denied approval because a "Damage Deposit" in the amount of $5,000.00 was not received from Johnson and building was designed with hangar door 25 feet from lot line. Written notice was given. MLAA Board of Directors over ruled the ACC because the hangar door in question would face a 40 foot ingress - egress easement, and this is allowed as per Bylaw Article 6, Section 2. After much debate, and after it was argued by Johnson that the MLAA Board of Directors did not rescind its previous ruling to allow Builders to post their liability insurance in lieu of the $5,000.oo deposit, the Board voted to remove any requirement of a "Damage Deposit" or insurance. Written approval was received from the ACC.